The visionary thinking of Erich Bloch revolutionized the computer industry and transformed the National Science Foundation. At 90, he is still chock full of ideas.

By Melanie D.G. Kaplan | Photographs by Grant Gibson

Last December, Science Foundation Arizona (SFAz) hosted
an evening in Phoenix honoring Erich Bloch (BS ’52), a former
board member who was about to celebrate his 90th birthday. During
the celebration, science and computer executives praised Bloch as a
computer pioneer, an engineer’s engineer, an idol and a rock
star.

“He stands for mustering the will to make bold
investments, to stay relentless in the effort to improve the human
condition,” said SFAz Chairman Don Budinger. “Think
about that. That’s the primary purpose of
research.”

Bloch, a German-born American, studied electrical engineering at
the Federal Polytechnic Institute of Zurich, Switzerland, and
received his bachelor of science degree in the same subject from UB
in 1952. He served as the eighth director of the National Science
Foundation (NSF) from 1984 to 1990—the first without a PhD,
coming from industry as opposed to academia. Among other
accomplishments, he transitioned the NSF Network to a
commercialized Internet, established the Science and Technology Centers, and more than
tripled the budget for education and human resources. He is widely
considered to have been the most effective NSF director in
communicating the benefits of investing in research and
education.

Prior to his appointment, Bloch had a 32-year career at IBM,
where he helped develop the STRETCH supercomputer system. He was also lead
architect for IBM’s
System/360, which made possible such conveniences as ATMs,
electronic health care records and global travel reservations.
Later, Bloch was appointed vice president of IBM’s Data
Systems Division and general manager of the East Fishkill facility.
From 1981 to 1984, he served as the founding chairman of the
Semiconductor Research Corporation, which funded advanced research
in universities. In 1985 President Ronald Reagan awarded the
National Medal of Technology and Innovation to Bloch and two others
for their work on the IBM System/360.

Last year, Bloch donated $1.5 million to UB to establish the Erich
Bloch Endowed Chair for the new Department of Materials Design
and Innovation. These days, he works out of the offices of the
Council on Competitiveness in Washington, D.C., where he became the
organization’s first distinguished fellow in 1991. We talked
to Bloch there in the spring.

Erich Bloch

What inspired you as a student?

I was always interested in mathematics. My first idea was to
become a professor. Then I decided I wanted something I could get
my hands on, so I pursued an area of engineering that was heavily
involved in mathematics—electrical engineering, which is now
electronics and everything else combined. Mathematics was something
that I thought I understood, and it was abstract enough. It
wasn’t tied to things like screws and power supplies that I
wasn’t interested in. It was more of a general theory of how
the world works.

What did your parents do?

My father was a businessman and my mother was a
mother.

Did you have anyone encouraging you in sciences as a
child?

I was encouraged by my teachers. I wasn’t that encouraged
at home, because people thought you really had to do something
where you could earn a living. In mathematics you don’t earn
a living—that was the general point. My parents were
supportive but not like parents are today.

How do you think science education has changed from then to
now?

I think there used to be a big divide between what were called
abstract studies and studies aimed at a particular kind of
occupation. Who took mathematics as an undergraduate? Very few
people. Today, everybody does. I think it’s a different
environment—now people look at what is required to be
successful in a particular area, and mathematics is an area we
focus on.

One thing people talk about now is the dearth of women in the
sciences. How can we change that?

I think there’s a general understanding today that women
can pursue science and mathematics. That was not the case when I
grew up. It was, “Oh, she’s a woman, she’ll take
care of the house.” We have grown out of that. Can you make
it happen faster? Yes, and that’s what people are trying to
do, and I’m certainly for that. But I’m not for forcing
women into science just because it’s good to have more women
in science. That’s a negative, and it’s also an
exaggeration. Women are not excluded today. I think the worst thing
is insisting it needs to be 50-50. That’s nonsense. In the
end, it depends on the individual—what he or she can do or
accomplish, not filling a gap that someone said needs to be
filled.

What do you think the U.S. must do to stay competitive in
research and education?

Get better! Look at countries that are ahead of us, like Israel,
Sweden and Finland. You have to bring the whole country along. We
have great differences within the United States. Look at the bottom
10 states and compare their performances to the top 10 states. You
shouldn’t have that type of discrepancy. Look at who are on
school boards—people who don’t really understand this.
They’re there because they’re local politicians, or for
reasons that have little to do with insight into education. I
always thought this idea of each city having its own program for
education is awfully wrong. You need to have a certain basis and
then be able to build. Today it’s a political game.
We’ll suffer from that.

There’s also a fine line for us in the United States
between staying competitive and sharing research for the greater
good. What’s the solution there?

That’s an old question. You balance by trying to
understand what a country has that you don’t have and then
going after that particular area. If you have to give up something,
exchange information. We are much too careful. What’s wrong
with giving everything to the Chinese? Just make sure you get from
the Chinese everything they know. That’s a lot more
interesting than saying, “I can’t let you in here
because I can’t let you see what we’re doing.”
That’s appropriate for a company about to release a product
but not for companies doing research.

What did you take away from your time at UB?

I didn’t go to the University at Buffalo as a traditional
student. I went to evening courses because I had to work during the
day to make some money. I worked at Allied Chemical and Dye, a big
chemical company that got absorbed by other companies. I was lucky
enough to be in their basic research department for three years. So
I was going there during the day and to school at night. I had some
courses with people who worked in industry in Buffalo. Some of them
were really good and could show you the relationship between
studying a particular field and working in that field. I always
thought if I had gone to the day school I would have gotten more
out of university. But I’m not convinced of that today. I
think I got more doing what I did. It was tough, though, because I
worked 16 hours a day.

Early in your career, did you have any idea how computers
would take on the role they play today?

Yes, I did. It was very clear that electronics coupled with
computers would be a major development that was required in order
to move forward. It was more than an end in itself. When I started
at IBM, I was looked at as a screwball. “Yeah, he wants to
play around with computers.” I didn’t want to play
around with them—I wanted to put them to use.

What technologies do you use today? Do you have a
smartphone?

Sure! I have one computer here, one at home, one in my
pocket. That’s enough. You have to make sure your
technology doesn’t take more time to keep up with than
to actually use.

Today some people are pushing back on technology, saying
we’re too dependent on it, or that having a screen in front
of us all the time is bad for focusing or creative thinking. What
do you say?

I don’t think that’s correct. It can overwhelm you,
no doubt about it. But I think it’s up to the individual to
understand what he wants to pursue and keep out the things that are
not important from his or her viewpoint.

What puzzles are you still trying to solve?

Big data. People don’t really understand what to do with
all that information. They have millions of bits of information
that they can’t possibly understand without the help of
computers.

You spent six years at the NSF. One bio says you were a
controversial leader. Were you?

I don’t know if I was controversial. I think they were
surprised I got involved with some of the details I got involved
in. The thing I was happy about—I made up my mind I would
stay for all six years of the appointment, because no one else
except the first two directors were there for six years. I was
convinced that if you want to do something, that’s about the
time it takes to put some ideas into place and make sure that
changes are accepted.

Looking back now, would you have done anything
differently?

No. I did what I thought at that time was important. Revisiting
that now and coming to a different conclusion is not very helpful
to anyone, especially oneself. You live a life only once. You
don’t live it twice. You do what you think is right at the
time, and you stand on that.